On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 11:18 AM David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I guess that's OK. I don't particularly favor that approach here but I >> can live with it. I agree that too-wide views are annoying, but as far >> as pg_stat_activity goes, that ship has pretty much sailed already, >> and the same is true for a lot of other views. Inventing a one-off >> solution for this particular case doesn't seem particularly warranted >> to me but, again, I can live with it. > > I can see putting counts that people would want to use for statistics > elsewhere but IIUC the whole purpose of "overflowed" is to inform someone > that their session presently has degraded performance because it has created > too many subtransactions. Just because the "degraded" condition itself is > rare doesn't mean the field "is my session degraded" is going to be seldom > consulted. In fact, I would rather think it is always briefly consulted to > confirm it has the expected value of "false" (blank, IMO, don't show anything > in that column unless it is exceptional) and the presence of a value there > would draw attention to the desired fact that something is wrong and warrants > further investigation. The pg_stat_activity view seems like the perfect > place to at least display that exception flag.
OK, thanks for voting. I take that as +1 for putting it in pg_stat_activity proper, which is also my preferred approach. However, a slight correction: it doesn't inform you that your session has degraded performance. It informs you that your session may be degrading everyone else's performance. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
